WP3 RD
How do the cultural values embedded in this object help it translate well (or not) to your home country? What does this say about the globalization of culture?
A habitat to over a billion people, India is a unique amalgamation of culture, and heritage thereby attracting all sorts of western media. Danny Boyle, a director, dissected India and realized that there exist some robust cultural boundaries and generic conventions that don’t hold in the west. He decided to create a movie, set in India, that breaks these cultural boundaries, and re-establishes these generic conventions such that it appeals to a western audience. Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire reveals the dynamic slum Dharavi and the eclectic nature of Mumbai city to the world, through a romantic and rags-to-riches story. The movie went ahead to win various academy awards and received great appeal from both western and eastern audiences. However, the aspects of the movie that appealed to its western audience were disdained by its eastern audience. Many Indians criticize Boyle’s work to be an unrealistic depiction of Dharavi, an unfair exposure of grave Indian poverty, and an implausible and over-glorified rags-to-riches story.
The Hollywood movie illustrates the rebellious nature of those stuck in an orphanage in India and shows us three different stories of how three different individuals tried to escape and break their poverty cycle. Jamal, the protagonist, strategically and astutely finds his way to a western quiz show who wants to be a millionaire? Salim, his brother, falls into the world of crime, and finds himself as the ‘right-hand’ of a crime boss. Latika, Jamal’s love, finds herself as the crime boss’s ‘woman’. All three routes, evince a cultural value: rebellion. Being rebellious, when in harsh circumstances, is both a western and eastern phenomenon. Take the homeless population of America as an example: they rebel by engaging in criminal activities much like Salim. Some westerners argue that Boyle constructs an anti-feminine plot by portraying Latika as an objectified woman. However, Boyle truly exposes the subordination of woman in Indian society through Latika being ‘sold for sex’ — a practice originated in the west. This plot structure bolsters my primary argument: Indian viewers objected an Indian woman being sold to a crime boss for sex, whereas western viewers argued ‘why wasn’t Jamal a woman?’
However, that wasn’t the reason the movie got negative feedback from various Indian critics, journalists, and artists. Boyle’s portrayal of Mumbai as a city, gave birth to polarized opinions amidst western and eastern viewers: eastern viewers knew the beauty of the city and loved it, however, Boyle’s illustration made viewers in the west demean the city. Dargis of New York Times described Mumbai as “vast, vibrant, sun-soaked, jampacked ghetto, a kaleidoscopic city of flimsy shacks and struggling humanity”, whereas a reporter from Seoul Times wrote “demeaning portrayal of India. Poverty is celebrated, destitution, squalor, beggar mafia and prostitution stare at us from the frames — magnified to distortion, glorified silly and used as tools of titillation to please the smug white world”. He concluded his criticism by saying “only India can do [the Bollywood genre] right”. Boyle attempted to produce the best of eastern and western cinema, however, failed to do so, and ultimately went back to his roots producing a film set in the east with a robust western perspective.
While adding these western ideals to the film, and trying to revamp generic conventions, Boyle portrays Jamal to be individualistic. Collectivism, “the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it”, is deeply rooted in Indian culture. Jamal grows individually, while the people he considered ‘family’ suffered within the traps of the criminal world in Bombay. This is a fundamental problem in the plot of the movie. Indians cannot relate to human beings functioning that way, and are completely against an individualistic lifestyle. Notice our constitution, our laws, and our familial teachings, everything that makes us Indian is rooted with belonging to a certain group, class, sect, family, and community. Yes, Jamal’s life story opened the eyes of many Indians showing them that the “American Dream” can be real anywhere in the world. However, he assumed that audiences would adapt to the modern cultural normative he was setting; well he was wrong. From the movie’s point of view, Jamal was looking for a way out, in came an opportunity hailing from America, and Jamal’s life changed. Boyle tries to kindle the ‘American Dream’ within Indians he doesn’t show them the ‘Indian Dream’, or to any global viewer a ‘dream’ in general.
Various aspects in the movie, attest to the idea that Boyle interprets Indian and Eastern culture correctly, however, chooses to westernise certain norms to appeal to his western audience, and create a novelty for his global audience. Saying that Slumdog doesn’t dissect various Indian cultural values distinctly and accurately, is wrong of me, well, they do so often, but as mentioned there are various major things they get wrong. Boyle illustrates the caste and class system very vividly in the movie. Jamal acts as a metaphor for the repercussions of the Hindu-Muslim riots that exist in India. His character changes from a reckless schoolboy content with his lifestyle to an ambitious and innocent young man set to achieve his dreams of “fame and wealth”. Boyle illustrates this character development very smoothly, almost like its natural. Today we find such stories of young kids using their hardships as motivation to achieve great heights; Boyle, uses Jamal as a symbol of such kids and connects his story with every young, ambitious, individual who has a dream they’re set to achieve.
